At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants. In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants. In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

K

We don't recognize Pastor Aeternas, remember?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants. In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

It's quite simple really. The practice of the Orthodox Church is to baptise those who wish to enter into the Church. However, it is permissible to receive heretics whose baptismal form is orthodox (i.e. in the Name of the Trinity - the Didache permits sprinkling as an exception to the rule) by Chrismation where this is considered necessary or expedient. The decision of whether or not to apply economia lies with the bishop under whom you are received, and some bishops apply it more liberally than others - hence the differences between the various Patriarchates.

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants.

All Orthodox Churches can, and do, baptize converts. It has become less common in the US but the option for baptism is still there.

Quote

In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.

I am reminded of an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself (Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So, what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

Quote

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

Neither did Saint Cyprian and the Church of North Africa accept the ruling of the Pope.

Here is a basic introduction to the difference between Augustinian theology (Pope Stephen) on the existence of sacraments outside the Church and the theology of Saint Cyprian which prevailed in the East and at the Ecumenical Councils.

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants. In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

K

You do realize that Orthodoxy thinks St. Cyprian won that dispute? The canon from St. Cyprian's council of Carthage was received as authoritative by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. As was St. Basil's First Canonical Letter which adds some theological nuance and explains under what conditions the Church can pastorally bend the rules to receive some by chrismation or confession only--but starts with the assumed proposition that 'properly speaking, everyone (schismatic or heretic) should be received with baptism'.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

It's my understanding that most of the Holy Orthodox Churches do baptize those Christians from other confessions, who seek conversion to Orthodoxy and had received a Trinitarian baptism with water. It is a practice that has varied over the centuries, especially in Russia, as I recall. For some reason, I don't think the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except Mt. Athos, and Patmos I'd guess, baptizes those who had received a Trinitarian baptism by sprinkling. In the Western Hemisphere, most, if not all of the SCOBA jurisdictions, accept Trinitarian baptisms from Christian denominations, which is considered an acceptance by "economy."

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

Did he? Where? Do you have a specific quote from His Holiness where he says that a baptism outside of the Church confers the grace of baptism? I've heard several times that according to St. Augustine a non-Orthodox baptisms are valid and that they confer the grace of baptism but I've never seen quotes to prove that. On the other if I remember correctly he says in his book about baptism that a Heterodox baptism do not confer grace. Since the dispute about validity of a Heterodox baptism seems to be quite ambivalent I'd like to see some specific quotes from Pope Stephen (and. St. Augustine for that matter if he accepts validity of Heterodox baptism somewhere).

The necessity of re-baptism for converts is approached on a case by case basis.

But "re-baptism" implies a second baptism. No one can be "re-baptised", because we believe "in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin".

Right. My priest put it this way: "We don't know whether your baptism was valid, so we'll perform a baptism. If your Protestant baptism was invalid, then this one counts; but if your Protestant baptism was valid, then all we've done is given you a bath."

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Neither did Saint Cyprian and the Church of North Africa accept the ruling of the Pope.

Who wins out? Alpo, Pope Stephen II's view was solidified in the Council of Arles in 314, Cyprian's in the Council of Carthage, though Witega, you say Cyprian's view was solidified in the 7th Ecumenical Council, so that would seem to win out, correct?

Also Witega, in regards to your desire to be shown a case where a person changes his view because he was found to be at odds with Rome:1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome? (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181) Though he does not say why he believes this.

2) Same book p200: In regards to defending Athanasius: "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime...and sought forgiveness from Julius Bishop of ancient Rome."

Finally, Irish Hermit, interesting link, but not sure Neil's view is accurate. A Roman Catholic priest loses his power to perform sacraments if he is cut off from Rome. In any case, Khomiakov, the 19th cent. Russian Orthodox theologian says any Christian can validly baptize if they do so in the Trinitarian format, so this would support Stephen II/Council of Arles' view. (On Spiritual Unity p42).

Neither did Saint Cyprian and the Church of North Africa accept the ruling of the Pope.

Who wins out? Alpo, Pope Stephen II's view was solidified in the Council of Arles in 314, Cyprian's in the Council of Carthage, though Witega, you say Cyprian's view was solidified in the 7th Ecumenical Council, so that would seem to win out, correct?

Also Witega, in regards to your desire to be shown a case where a person changes his view because he was found to be at odds with Rome:1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome? (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181) Though he does not say why he believes this.

2) Same book p200: In regards to defending Athanasius: "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime...and sought forgiveness from Julius Bishop of ancient Rome."

Finally, Irish Hermit, interesting link, but not sure Neil's view is accurate. A Roman Catholic priest loses his power to perform sacraments if he is cut off from Rome. In any case, Khomiakov, the 19th cent. Russian Orthodox theologian says any Christian can validly baptize if they do so in the Trinitarian format, so this would support Stephen II/Council of Arles' view. (On Spiritual Unity p42).

K

Kaste,

You are approaching this all wrong. You want one Orthodox document giving a definitive view on baptism of converts. Ain't gonna happen.

If you're looking for organized religion, Orthodoxy is the wrong faith for you.

It is up to the discretion of the local Bishop whether to baptise and chrismate the convert, or to accept their baptism via economia through chrismation.

My suggestion? Stop reading and start attending an Orthodox church and learn about Orthodoxy under the guidance of a priest who can put everything in the right context for you.

I get the impression from your posts that you've read some stuff, and now you're going to come on here and tell us how it should be. Or you're going to do an expose on Orthodoxy.

We've been around for 2000+ years my friend. There's nothing new under the sun that you're going to bring up that hasn't been brought up before.

God bless you on your journey.

In XC,

Maureen

« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 10:52:45 PM by HandmaidenofGod »

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

I think my jurisdiction usually receives all adult converts into the faith by baptism and chrismation. I had been previously baptised as a Trinitarian Christian upon my confession of faith, but was baptised when received into the Orthodox Church. I consider the Orthodox baptism to be the valid one. It was very special and moving to be immersed. I don't think you'd want to miss out on that.

1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome? (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181) Though he does not say why he believes this.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.htmlIn Vol. 14 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, you can find the text of the Council of Carthage held under Cyprian, the First Canonical epistle of St. Basil, Canon II of the Quinsext Council where both were included in the universal canons of the Church, and Canon I of the 7th Ecumenical Council which confirmed the Quinsext's canonical authority are all easily accessible.

On the same page, you can access Vol. 5 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers which has the extant writings of St. Cyprian.

Since Stephen Ray doesn't give his reason, it's rather hard to address his odd claim. The 'standard' history of the controversy (found even in the Catholic Encyclopedia's account--see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) is that it ended when Pope Stephen was martyred (becoming St. Stephen) and his successor ceased pressing the issue. Rome continued with its practice, Carthage and the East continued with its practice, culminating in the Ecumenical canons above. There is certainly no record of Cyprian ever renouncing or holding another council to revoke the canon established by 318 fathers at Carthage.

Given the above, I have little impulse to treat additional information from Ray as any more historically accurate. But even setting that aside, you're quote doesn't have enough context to mean anything. It says "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this". What is "all this"? That a person who was repenting or trying to rejoin the Church after separating would go to an authoritative figure (and no one questions that the Popes of Rome where the most prestigious bishops of the Church) to have that repentence recognized and the schism healed would not be surprising. But the question at hand is not what they did once they repented, but what caused the repentance? The papal claim is that the bishop of Rome holds some kind of unique postion such that being in communion with him is an absolute necessity. However, the actual practice in the first millenium is that when someone thinks the bishop of Rome is wrong, they behave as though fidelity to the right is more important than communion with (much less submission to) Rome. Your example might be the first exception anyone has presented to that rule from the first 7 centuries, but that's only if "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this" means "When Ursacius and Valens saw that they were out of line with the Pope." (and only if its actually a verifiable event unlike the claim about St. Cyprian).

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

The Orthodox position is well expressed in the Canons of Saint Basil which were incorporated into one of the Ecumenical Councils.

[Question, whey didn't the Church of Rome accept the teaching of an Ecumenical Council? Why did it keep on with Saint Stephen's view on baptism?]

Here is a patristic viewpoint -from Saint Basil the Great. Notice the typicalbalance of the Church Fathers - while the principle of no Sacraments and noApostolic Succession outside the Church is clearly enunciated, Saint Basil alsostates very clearly that for the sake of the good of the Church "economy" may beused if it is thought necessary in the case of Baptism.

Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the "First Canon" of Saint Basil is a shorterversion)

---- "It seemed best to the ancients-I refer to Cyprian and our ownFirmilian-to subject all of these (Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae)to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arosethrough schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had inthem the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting of it failed because of theseverance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, andthrough the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but thosewho had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizingnor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the HolySpirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commandedthose who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to theChurch and be purified by the true baptism of the Church.

"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asiathat, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it beaccepted."

Note the word "economy" used here by Saint Basil with reference to situationswhen baptism is not insisted upon. Saint Athanasius also uses the word economywith reference to the reception of heretics. Some modern theologians arepushing the line that the concept of "economy" is an innovation fostered bySaint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain but here we see Saint Basil employing theconcept back in the 4th century.

Canon I of the 7th Ecumenical Council which confirmed the Quinsext's canonical authority

Witega,Here is the relevant text from Canon I of Nicea II:

"We joyfully embrace the sacred canons and we maintain complete and unshaken their regulation, both those expounded by those trumpets of the Spirit, the apostles worthy of all praise, and those from the six holy universal synods and from the synods assembled locally for the promulgation of such decrees, and from our holy fathers. Indeed all of these, enlightened by one and the same Spirit, decreed what is expedient."http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum07.htm#CANONS

By "sacred canons" I assume that means the Apostolic canons. Anyone disagree? By "6 holy universal synods", are you sure that includes Trullo/Quinsext council?By "synods assembled locally", it cannot mean to include every local synod, since of course you would agree that many contradict eachother. So which ones? (Arles and Carthage on this thread's very topic for instance).

Why is all this important? If Pope Stephen II is right then so called Trinitarian heretics can be considered in the Church. So who wins? Council of Carthage/Cyprian's view or Counicl of Arles/Stephen II's view

Also Witega, in regards to your desire to be shown a case where a person changes his view because he was found to be at odds with Rome:1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome? (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181) Though he does not say why he believes this.

Convenient for his theology.

St. Cyprian himself translated the letter Firmilian wrote against Pope St. Stephen. Doesn't indicate that he caved.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

By "6 holy universal synods", are you sure that includes Trullo/Quinsext council?[/snip]Did the 7th Ecumenical Council really sanction Cyprian's canons?...

Yes. The Quinsext council, which sanctions Cyprian's canon as well as St. Basil's first canonical letter, was considered by its attendees to be a continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, called back into session to attend to canonical manners as the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils proper had not made any canons--hence the name 'quinsext' 5-6. In the East, the canons of the Quinsext Council were always considered the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, although there was some controversy about this understanding in the West. This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

Pope Hadrian I distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod. “All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.”

(Quinsext LXXXII is the canon on the Lamb to which Pope Hadrian must be referring)

Finally, this historical witness of canonical collections is clear. From the time they were promulgated, down to the present, the Quinsext canons and the canons of the councils they affirmed, have been included in all Eastern canon collections. There's no question the Eastern Church has always accepted them both on their own authority and as confirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

"from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice. In the so-called "Decretum" of Pope Gelasius (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

You state:

Quote

This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

How is it "clear" that "by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils" specifically means/includes Trullo's canons? The letter by Pope Hadrian I is good evidence but is only a theological opinion in a letter, and as I'm sure you know cannot carry the weight of an official position of Rome, or be used as proof Rome officially recognized Trullo's canons.

Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

"from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice. In the so-called "Decretum" of Pope Gelasius (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

You state:

Quote

This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

How is it "clear" that "by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils" specifically means/includes Trullo's canons? The letter by Pope Hadrian I is good evidence but is only a theological opinion in a letter, and as I'm sure you know cannot carry the weight of an official position of Rome, or be used as proof Rome officially recognized Trullo's canons.

K

I read somewhere that eventually the west accepted Trullo, but I could be wrong about that......I have to review to make sure. If you want to know my source......it came from here:

Define 'accept'. We know that Pope Hadrian I accepted them because he said he did. I leave it to Roman Catholics to explain when a Pope's decisions are authoritative and when they are not, since I think it's well-established that the Quinsext canons did not make it into the body of Latin canon law.

That is not, however, terribly relevant here. Your original question assumed that the baptismal controversy had been settled in favor of Pope St. Stephen's position when that is not the historical record. Pope St. Stephen's position was opposed not only by St. Cyprian (and 318 bishops of the North African Church) but by such Greek luminaries as St. Firmilian of Caesarea and St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Pope St. Stephen was martyred while in the midst of the controversy, and his successors dropped the topic. The Churches of Africa and the East continued with their practice, so that in the 4th century, we find St. Basil affirming, in his 1st canonical letter, that 'strictly speaking,' all converts (pagans, heretics, and mere schismatics) should be received via baptism, and then in 7th century we see the Quinisext council confirming both Cyprian's local council and St. Basil's letter, and the Seventh Council confirming the Quinisext--witnessing to a continuous understanding in the East, whether Rome ever accepted it or not. (fairly clearly acknowledged in the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes you yourself cite).

Quote

You state:

Quote

This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

How is it "clear" that "by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils" specifically means/includes Trullo's canons? The letter by Pope Hadrian I is good evidence but is only a theological opinion in a letter, and as I'm sure you know cannot carry the weight of an official position of Rome, or be used as proof Rome officially recognized Trullo's canons.

You misread me. I said that we know that the Seventh Ecumenical Council considered the Quinisext canons to be the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council (and *not* a local council) because in the minutes of the Seventh Council, St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, stated that they were. So when the Fathers of the Seventh went on to affirm the 'divine canons' set forth 'by the Six Ecumenical Councils' we know they thought they were including the Quinisext canons among those. And since Canon II of the Quinisext Council enumerates in detail which local councils and canonical letters it was affirming, it is easy enough to figure out which 'local councils and Holy Fathers' the Fathers of the Seventh Council were referring to.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great